jan. sales for camaro, mustang and challenger
02-09-2012 | 02:47 PM
#101
I know the Boss has forged internals,CNC'd heads, intake...i just threw that in there for the sake of arguement, and i see your point about the ZR1. Like i posted before, i think that the coyote motor is being dismissed without any consideration of its ablilities just because its a Ford engine.
BTW, I dont think the federal govt hires high school kids..and my education level is well past that...please dont try to insult me in that sense...
BTW, I dont think the federal govt hires high school kids..and my education level is well past that...please dont try to insult me in that sense...
I didn't say that you only have a high school education, or that you were still in high school. I said that your arguments seemed like a high school kids because it really seems like an argument I would have had with someone in high school.
02-09-2012 | 02:50 PM
#102
02-09-2012 | 03:00 PM
#104
Back on topic, the new Camaro was built to appeal to the masses first. And you could argue that the new 5.0 was built to appeal to the performance enthusiast first.
Problem with that (if you wish to call it a problem at all): the masses buy many more vehicles than the performance enthusiasts.
As stated already, glad that there are 3 different brands, with various trims and budgets in mind, for either the masses or the performance enthusiast to choose from. It's a great time to be into pony or muscle cars - there is showroom power and handling available like never before.
As for LS3 vs 5.0, well whoever thought that someone here might have said the LS3 is smaller in displacement is fooling themselves. Most members here, save for a few newbies perhaps, know that the LS family of engines is much smaller in overall physical size than the Ford OHC. IMO, I wouldn't jump on either bandwagon, both are proving to be great platforms to build with - each to their own.
02-09-2012 | 05:38 PM
#106
I know the Boss has forged internals,CNC'd heads, intake...i just threw that in there for the sake of arguement, and i see your point about the ZR1. Like i posted before, i think that the coyote motor is being dismissed without any consideration of its ablilities just because its a Ford engine.
BTW, I dont think the federal govt hires high school kids..and my education level is well past that...please dont try to insult me in that sense...
BTW, I dont think the federal govt hires high school kids..and my education level is well past that...please dont try to insult me in that sense...
02-09-2012 | 05:40 PM
#107
TECH Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,799
Likes: 16
From: St.Charles MO
This is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread with you, you are a mustang nutswinger and can't stand it not being on top.
If you weren't a fanboy then you wouldn't be on an GM site arguing hp/l for a Mustang.
Lighter is lighter, for the last time we are not talking about the cars, just the engines. And even if we were talking about cars the LS3 was made for the Corvette - so there goes your boat anchor argument.
As already stated displacement is not engine size, its engine displacement. Engine size is its physical size. The LS3 is smaller than the Coyote.
Same story here, not talking about cars, but if we were take a look at the vette.
412hp is 412hp is 412hp, it doesn't matter if the Coyote has the best flowing heads, or best internals in the world, its still a 440+lbs engine thats the size of a small barn, and makes 412hp, where as the LS3 is lighter, smaller, and more powerful, making it a better performance engine stock for stock, its simple physics.
Lets talking about "efficiency" shall we?
Say you are a building a car and have the choice between two engines, for simplicity sake they make the same power at the same RPM:
Engine A: 400hp, 400lbs, 5L, physically smaller (in case you haven't figured it out, a physically smaller engine can be mounted closer to the center of the car and closer to the ground for better all around performance)
Engine B: 400hp, 500lbs, 4L, physically bigger.
Which engine would you put in your performance car? Which is truly more "efficient"?
Let me ask you, what advantage would GM have by decreasing the displacement of their LS3, seriously?
Now how about this, what advantage would they have from increasing the displacement? - you end up making more power, having a flatter torque curve, all with out adding weight or size to the engine - no downsides. You may end up making less hp/l, but thats totally meaningless because you will have more power to weight.
If you weren't a fanboy then you wouldn't be on an GM site arguing hp/l for a Mustang.
Your arguement about the LS3 being lighter(by 25 lbs but what good does that do when its in a boat anchor)
, smaller(????still dont get that one since the coyote's displacement is 1.2L smaller)
more powerful( by 14hp and 20+tq...but again doesnt help when its in a tank) doesnt hold water.
I would have entertained your arguement if you had better examples such as the LS3 having better internals, better flowing heads,
more efficient, etc.. That to me qualifies as a better engine .
Say you are a building a car and have the choice between two engines, for simplicity sake they make the same power at the same RPM:
Engine A: 400hp, 400lbs, 5L, physically smaller (in case you haven't figured it out, a physically smaller engine can be mounted closer to the center of the car and closer to the ground for better all around performance)
Engine B: 400hp, 500lbs, 4L, physically bigger.
Which engine would you put in your performance car? Which is truly more "efficient"?
Let me ask you, what advantage would GM have by decreasing the displacement of their LS3, seriously?
Now how about this, what advantage would they have from increasing the displacement? - you end up making more power, having a flatter torque curve, all with out adding weight or size to the engine - no downsides. You may end up making less hp/l, but thats totally meaningless because you will have more power to weight.
02-09-2012 | 05:53 PM
#111
Are you talking road course or straight line?
Bone stock base Corvette LS3s have run 11.8/11.9 second 1/4 mile times at well over 118+mph with the record being 11.71 at almost 120mph.
The Boss 302 is certainly fast and sometime this year I do believe that a bone stock Boss 302 will hit the 11s (if it hasn't already) but until then:
Boss < base Vette
Boss < GS
02-09-2012 | 06:27 PM
#113
***Repost Police***
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
From: DFW, TX
. The LS3 is a damn good engine, and so is the Coyote. However, the advantages that the LS3 holds (lighter weight, smaller dimensions) are nullified by the package it was put in. So it is kinda pointless to talk about which engine is better, because the Camaro's weight keeps the Mustang out in front.
02-09-2012 | 06:50 PM
#114
TECH Resident
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
From: NJ
This is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread with you, you are a mustang nutswinger and can't stand it not being on top.
If you weren't a fanboy then you wouldn't be on an GM site arguing hp/l for a Mustang.
Lighter is lighter, for the last time we are not talking about the cars, just the engines. And even if we were talking about cars the LS3 was made for the Corvette - so there goes your boat anchor argument.
As already stated displacement is not engine size, its engine displacement. Engine size is its physical size. The LS3 is smaller than the Coyote.
Same story here, not talking about cars, but if we were take a look at the vette.
412hp is 412hp is 412hp, it doesn't matter if the Coyote has the best flowing heads, or best internals in the world, its still a 440+lbs engine thats the size of a small barn, and makes 412hp, where as the LS3 is lighter, smaller, and more powerful, making it a better performance engine stock for stock, its simple physics.
Lets talking about "efficiency" shall we?
Say you are a building a car and have the choice between two engines, for simplicity sake they make the same power at the same RPM:
Engine A: 400hp, 400lbs, 5L, physically smaller (in case you haven't figured it out, a physically smaller engine can be mounted closer to the center of the car and closer to the ground for better all around performance)
Engine B: 400hp, 500lbs, 4L, physically bigger.
Which engine would you put in your performance car? Which is truly more "efficient"?
Let me ask you, what advantage would GM have by decreasing the displacement of their LS3, seriously?
Now how about this, what advantage would they have from increasing the displacement? - you end up making more power, having a flatter torque curve, all with out adding weight or size to the engine - no downsides. You may end up making less hp/l, but thats totally meaningless because you will have more power to weight.
If you weren't a fanboy then you wouldn't be on an GM site arguing hp/l for a Mustang.
Lighter is lighter, for the last time we are not talking about the cars, just the engines. And even if we were talking about cars the LS3 was made for the Corvette - so there goes your boat anchor argument.
As already stated displacement is not engine size, its engine displacement. Engine size is its physical size. The LS3 is smaller than the Coyote.
Same story here, not talking about cars, but if we were take a look at the vette.
412hp is 412hp is 412hp, it doesn't matter if the Coyote has the best flowing heads, or best internals in the world, its still a 440+lbs engine thats the size of a small barn, and makes 412hp, where as the LS3 is lighter, smaller, and more powerful, making it a better performance engine stock for stock, its simple physics.
Lets talking about "efficiency" shall we?
Say you are a building a car and have the choice between two engines, for simplicity sake they make the same power at the same RPM:
Engine A: 400hp, 400lbs, 5L, physically smaller (in case you haven't figured it out, a physically smaller engine can be mounted closer to the center of the car and closer to the ground for better all around performance)
Engine B: 400hp, 500lbs, 4L, physically bigger.
Which engine would you put in your performance car? Which is truly more "efficient"?
Let me ask you, what advantage would GM have by decreasing the displacement of their LS3, seriously?
Now how about this, what advantage would they have from increasing the displacement? - you end up making more power, having a flatter torque curve, all with out adding weight or size to the engine - no downsides. You may end up making less hp/l, but thats totally meaningless because you will have more power to weight.
just 'cause i can.......
the coyote will have 420hp. the roadrunner already has 444.
yours truly,
the mustang nutswinger.
02-09-2012 | 10:19 PM
#115
5.0=ls3
Boss302>ls3
5.8SC>LSA
5.8SC>LS7
5.8SC=LS9 I would venture to say this is comparable to the LS3 v. 5.0...I bet the LS9 weighs less, and it's only an 11hp difference, and the LS9 is physically smaller. Id say they're probably equal stock v stock.
But look what happens when we put them in cars lol
GT>SS
Vette>GT
Boss>base vette (I'd say this is just plain wrong).
Boss=GS This is wrong.
CVS-V> Boss
ZL1>Boss
GT500>CTS-V
GT500(???)ZL1
GT500(???)Z06
ZR1>GT500
Boss302>ls3
5.8SC>LSA
5.8SC>LS7
5.8SC=LS9 I would venture to say this is comparable to the LS3 v. 5.0...I bet the LS9 weighs less, and it's only an 11hp difference, and the LS9 is physically smaller. Id say they're probably equal stock v stock.
But look what happens when we put them in cars lol
GT>SS
Vette>GT
Boss>base vette (I'd say this is just plain wrong).
Boss=GS This is wrong.
CVS-V> Boss
ZL1>Boss
GT500>CTS-V
GT500(???)ZL1
GT500(???)Z06
ZR1>GT500
02-09-2012 | 11:46 PM
#117
2009
2010
2011
2012
Yup, that's 2 years. The car has been for sale for over 3 years now. The new hasn't worn off yet? Wow, amazingly before the car came out everyone was saying the new would only last a year at most...funny how it's the other way around now?
2010
2011
2012
Yup, that's 2 years. The car has been for sale for over 3 years now. The new hasn't worn off yet? Wow, amazingly before the car came out everyone was saying the new would only last a year at most...funny how it's the other way around now?
02-10-2012 | 07:47 AM
#118
TECH Resident
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
From: NJ
09 was a concept car. doesn't count.
02-10-2012 | 07:50 AM
#119
TECH Resident
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
From: NJ
just 'cause i can.....
did anyone notice in the video that the zl1 only stops equal to a gt? and that it only skidpads .04 better than a gt? and that it only runs the 1/4 .6second faster?
that all said, the guy driving the thing in this video was a LOT better driver. i'm not sure what he meant by "corrected" though on his second pass where they didn't show a time. the roadrace portion of this video was the best part.
did anyone notice in the video that the zl1 only stops equal to a gt? and that it only skidpads .04 better than a gt? and that it only runs the 1/4 .6second faster?
that all said, the guy driving the thing in this video was a LOT better driver. i'm not sure what he meant by "corrected" though on his second pass where they didn't show a time. the roadrace portion of this video was the best part.
02-10-2012 | 08:19 AM
#120
You're an idiot I bought my car in July 2009 as a 2010 model....just like almost every car manufacturer does.
Furthermore when 2010 Camaros were smashing mustang sales, it was because everyone knew the 5.0 was coming back in 2011 so they were waiting to buy that. I dont know what the excuse was when the 5.0 came back, but Im sure its probably because the Boss was coming back and people were waiting for that.
Oh and "just cause I can" you are probably one of the dumbest ******* to post on tech yet.....just cause I can.
Furthermore when 2010 Camaros were smashing mustang sales, it was because everyone knew the 5.0 was coming back in 2011 so they were waiting to buy that. I dont know what the excuse was when the 5.0 came back, but Im sure its probably because the Boss was coming back and people were waiting for that.
Oh and "just cause I can" you are probably one of the dumbest ******* to post on tech yet.....just cause I can.